IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v101y2021ics0264837720310681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of perceived economic contributions on individual preferences for environmentally friendly residential landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Xumin
  • Khachatryan, Hayk

Abstract

Areas devoted to maintained residential landscapes are a common trend in new community planning, increasing the potential for unintended environmental consequences. State, local governments, and water management organizations are interested in policies that promote low-input residential landscapes and relevant landscaping practices by individual households to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Converting traditional, turfgrass dominated residential lawns into low-input landscapes (i.e., design with lawn / plant bed combination) is one approach for water conservation. Additional considerations of perceived economic benefits of residential landscapes, such as the home value-added benefits (VAB), may affect the adoption decision. However, the relationship between individuals’ perceived VAB of low-input landscapes and preferences needs further investigation. The present study used a discrete choice experiment (CE) framework to investigate the effects of individuals’ perceived VAB on willingness to pay for environmentally friendly landscapes. The results revealed that simple economic benefits information alone does not affect homeowners’ landscape preferences. The perceived VAB significantly affect individuals’ adoption intentions, so that improving households’ perception of VAB can help encourage pro-environmental behavior. Contributions to the residential landscape preferences literature and practical implications for industry stakeholders are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2021. "Effects of perceived economic contributions on individual preferences for environmentally friendly residential landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0264837720310681
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720310681
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105125?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    2. Hayk Khachatryan & Dong Hee Suh & Guzhen Zhou & Michael Dukes, 2017. "Sustainable Urban Landscaping: Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Turfgrass Fertilizers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(3), pages 385-407, September.
    3. Xiang Bi & Lisa House & Zhifeng Gao, 2016. "Impacts of Nutrition Information on Choices of Fresh Seafood Among Parents," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(3), pages 355-372.
    4. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    7. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    9. Nickerson, Cynthia & Ebel, Robert & Borchers, Allison & Carriazo, Fernando, 2011. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007," Economic Information Bulletin 291937, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xuan Wei & Hayk Khachatryan & Alan Hodges & Charlie Hall & Marco Palma & Ariana Torres & Robin Brumfield, 2023. "Exploring market choices in the US ornamental horticulture industry," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 65-109, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Ruggiero Sardaro & Nicola Faccilongo & Francesco Contò & Piermichele La Sala, 2021. "Adaption Actions to Cope with Climate Change: Evidence from Farmers’ Preferences on an Agrobiodiversity Conservation Programme in the Mediterranean Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    6. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    7. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    9. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    10. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Durand, Antoine & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Beyond energy efficiency: Do consumers care about life-cycle properties of household appliances?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. Ihli, Hanna & Seegers, Ronja & Winter, Etti & Chiputwa, Brian & Gassner, Anja, 2021. "Preferences for Tree-Fruit Market Attributes Among Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Rwanda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 314980, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    13. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    14. Sarfo, Yaw & Musshoff, Oliver & Weber, Ron & Danne, Michael, 2021. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Digital Credit: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Madagascar," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315029, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Huh, Sung-Yoon & Jo, Manseok & Shin, Jungwoo & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2019. "Impact of rebate program for energy-efficient household appliances on consumer purchasing decisions: The case of electric rice cookers in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1394-1403.
    16. Matthew Beck & John Rose & David Hensher, 2011. "Behavioural responses to vehicle emissions charging," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 445-463, May.
    17. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    19. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Entem, Alicia & Fenichel, Eli P. & Rouhi Rad, Mani, 2021. "The decade after tomorrow: Estimation of discount rates from realistic temporal decisions over long time horizons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 158-174.
    20. Coppola, Pierluigi & De Fabiis, Francesco & Silvestri, Fulvio, 2024. "Urban Air Mobility (UAM): Airport shuttles or city-taxis?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 24-34.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0264837720310681. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.